We are all aware including the De-facto guardians ad litem that there was no petition that meets the Sodini requirements and certainly no notice. The net effect is:
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission
130 East Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601 -6219
Attn: Leah Black, Esq. RE: JoAnne Denison in relation to Cynthia Farenga
Dear Ms. Black:
As you are allegedly investigating the spurious charges that Ms. Farenga generated against Ms. Denison, and that she and Ms. Stern generated against me, it stands to reason one of the first items of business on the agenda of any person connecting an ‘honest’ investigation would be to ascertain if Ms. Farenga and Mr. Stern’s appointments were viable. Holding oneself out to be guardian ad litem when the Court appointing you has no jurisdiction is not in the best traditions of the bar! Indeed, it is a material misrepresentation of fact in the nature of fraud.
What Ms. Denison is asking is whether or not the ARDC was interested enough in the facts of the Sykes case to ascertain if the ‘jurisdictional’ protections that are mandatory statutory criterion were complied. Our investigation of the docket and the record indicate that 1). The petition filed by Ms. Troepe was defective in that it did not disclose all the close relatives, 2) Mr. Schmiedel and Mr. Stern both admitted that there was no compliance with the Sodini requirements – an ‘ambush’ in which another subject is to be discussed does not meet the Sodini requirements, and as these requirements are intended to protect an alleged incompetent (disabled person) from exactly what has happened in the Sykes case, the requirements cannot be waived. Indeed, if Mary was indeed incompetent she did not have the capacity to waive the requirements. 3) there is no notice of incompetency proceedings and/or proceedings for the appointment of a plenary guardian filed in the court record and no return of service is reported on any of Mary Sykes’ close relatives.
Thus, unless the ARDC was able to in its search of the record to ascertain something we could not find that contradicts the admissions of both Stern and Schmiedel Ms. Farenga and Mr. Stern are not duly appointed anythings – they are at best volunteers! The proceedings in the Sykes case without are extra jurisdictional. If the ARDC did an investigation the ‘declarations’ that you refer to in your letter would be in your file. In the documents that you furnished me there were no such pleadings, petitions, motions and/or certificates of service. As you affidavit suggests that you did a complete search the net effect is that Ms. Farenga’s complaints against Ms. Denison are not only inappropriate but ‘fraudulent!’ How such action by Ms. Farenga is condoned and allowed to continue is *****.
Of course, if as we suspect that the Sykes incompetency proceeding is one of those proceedings reported by Solzhenitsyn the facts are secondary to the result! The record of intimidation and frugality with the truth by the ‘de facto’ guardians’ ad litem is now legend. Just about every ‘internet site’ that exposes ‘elder abuse/ financial exploitation of the elderly’ has posted examples of the perfidy that has taken place in the Sykes case. Mr. Stern and Ms. Farenga are feathered players in the vitiation of ‘grandma’s rights.’ Ms. Denison and I individually and as her attorney would appreciate copies of any statements that were taken by ARDC investigators that could give any credibility to any claim that the protections that were mandated to be provided Mary Sykes and other persons similarly situated were indeed provided. As of this moment 100% of the evidence points to the fact that the mandate of the Illinois Legislature and the Appellate Court of Illinois are being ignored and senior citizens – such as Mary Sykes – are systematically having their liberty, property, human rights and civil rights confiscated. It also appears that any attorney who complains of the abrogation of justice is the subject of either ARDC discipline or harassment. This creates another wonderful image for the legal profession and the administration of justice. In fact it is the ‘son of Greylord!’
Of course, it the Sodini protections were not afforded Mary Sykes there was no jurisdiction in the Circuit Court of Cook County and the ARDC (and its Administrator) under its own rules and under the Supreme Court rules is mandated to bring charges against the attorneys who have ‘railroaded’ Mary Sykes into a situation in which she has been deprived of her liberty, her property, her civil rights, and unfortunately even her human rights. I have previously called upon the ARDC to join in the call for a complete, honest and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes matter. The silence is deafening!
Yours very truly,